Using Competency-Based Evaluation to Drive Teacher Excellence

uilding an opportunity culture for america’s teachers www.opportunityculture.org 

Using Competency-Based 

Evaluation to Drive Teacher 

Excellence 

Lessons from Singapore 

lucy steiner

About the Author 

LUCY STEINER is a senior consultant with Public 

Impact. She researches and consults on a variety of 

critical education issues, including school restructuring, 

human capital, charter school authorizing, and 

teacher professional development. Ms. Steiner both 

conducts her own work and leads project teams to 

deliver research, training, and consulting. A former 

high school English teacher, Ms. Steiner holds a 

master’s degree in education and social policy from 

Northwestern University, and a B.A. from the University 

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

About the Series 

This report is part of the series Building an 

Opportunity Culture for America’s Teachers. 

To see all reports in this series, please visit 

www.opportunityculture.org. 

Made possible with the support of: 

Acknowledgements 

This report was made possible by the generous 

support of the Joyce Foundation. It is part of a 

series of reports about “Building an Opportunity 

Culture for America’s Teachers.” The author would 

like to acknowledge the assistance of numerous 

Public Impact colleagues in the preparation of this 

report. Daniela Doyle provided extensive research 

assistance. Emily Hassel, Bryan Hassel, and Julie 

Kowal provided invaluable comments on an early 

draft, and Dana Brinson oversaw production and 

dissemination of the report. In addition, several 

external reviewers provided helpful feedback and 

insights, though all errors remain our own. Finally, 

we would like to thank Sharon Kebschull Barrett 

for careful editing, and April Leidig-Higgins for the 

design of the report. 

© 2010 Public Impact, Chapel Hill, NC 

Public Impact is a national education policy and 

management consulting firm based in Chapel Hill, 

NC. We are a team of researchers, thought leaders, 

tool-builders, and on-the-ground consultants who 

help education leaders and policymakers improve 

student learning in K-12 education. For more on 

Public Impact and our research, please visit: 

www.publicimpact.com. 

Public Impact encourages the free use, reproduction, 

and distribution of this working paper for 

noncommercial use. We require attribution for all 

use. For more information and instructions on the 

commercial use of our materials, please contact us at 

www.publicimpact.com.

Using Competency-Based Evaluation 

to Drive Teacher Excellence 

Lessons from Singapore 

By Lucy Steiner 

The United States’ education system needs 

to take its critical next step: fairly and accurately 

measuring teacher performance. 

Successful reforms to teacher pay, career advancement, 

professional development, retention, and other 

human capital systems that lead to better student 

outcomes depend on it. Where can the U.S. find the 

best-practice know-how for this To start, it should 

look to nations that have revamped teacher performance 

measurement to sustain teaching excellence, 

and Singapore offers a remarkable example. 

In the early 2000s, the small but racially and economically 

diverse nation of Singapore designed and 

implemented a new, performance-linked method of 

measuring teacher effectiveness that enables measurement 

of teachers in all subjects and grades. Singapore 

had already developed a high-performing education 

system. But as global economic opportunities for 

its citizens increased, it needed to ensure continued 

recruitment, retention, and performance of talented 

teachers. Today, Singapore’s students consistently 

perform at the top of internationally comparable 

exams,1 and 98 percent of Singapore’s sixth-grade 

students achieve math standards more rigorous than 

the eighth-grade standards on the U.S. NAEP exam 

(National Assessment of Educational Progress).2 

Think of it this way: many of Singapore’s lowerachieving 

students are learning at levels higher than 

gifted-student curricula in U.S. schools.3 Singapore, 

Many of Singapore’s lower-achieving 

students are learning at levels higher than 

gifted-student curricula in U.S. schools. 

while much smaller than the United States, compares 

in size to some of our states and largest cities, 

not one of which is on a path to achieve for children 

what Singapore has. 

What can we learn from Singapore Much, it 

seems, and Singapore knows it. The complete recipe 

for its educational success is not public, and determining 

the ingredients in the secret sauce is a challenge. 

But one element stands out: the development 

and thorough use of performance-linked “competencies” 

to measure, reward, and develop teacher 

performance. Education leaders take note: we’re not 

even close in the U.S., and yet similar systems and accompanying 

practices are within reach of any motivated 

leader who wants to achieve and sustain results 

like Singapore’s. This paper provides a launching 

point. Here we present a brief background on the 

state of teacher evaluation in the United States, the 

case for why we can learn much from Singapore, 

and key facts about Singapore’s competency-based 

teacher evaluation system. 

www.opportunityculture.org lessons from singapore | 1

U.S. Teacher Evaluation Falls Short 

As documented in several recent reports, the teacher 

evaluation systems in most schools and districts in 

the U.S. — many of which have been in place for 

decades — fail on multiple counts to deliver the 

kinds of information we need to help teachers improve 

student learning.4 Surveys suggest that even 

U.S. teachers themselves recognize that most current 

evaluation systems do not offer meaningful feedback 

on their performance. “My perspective on the evaluation 

process is that it is a joke,” a Chicago teacher 

commented.5 

These findings and opinions are not surprising 

when you consider that it is standard practice for administrators 

to use a binary rating sheet once a year, 

on which they check off whether a teacher is either 

“satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” on a series of items. 

Research suggests that in districts using such a system, 

99 percent of teachers receive a satisfactory rating. 

But even in districts that use a broader range of 

rating options, overall scores remain extremely high. 

In these districts, 94 percent of teachers receive one 

of the two top ratings, and less than 1 percent get an 

unsatisfactory rating.6 

By treating all teachers as essentially the same, 

current evaluation systems do not allow us to recognize 

or learn from top performers, to help all teachers 

by supporting their growth, or to respond forcefully 

when teacher performance falls well below acceptable 

levels. It is difficult to imagine any profession 

that would not be crippled under the weight of these 

constraints. 

Improving the current system will not be easy, 

but there are powerful forces at work to make finding 

solutions more likely than ever before. President 

Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan 

have made teacher evaluation a central element of 

their strategy to improve America’s schools. States 

that applied for federal funding under the “Race to 

the Top” were scored in part based on whether they 

tie teacher evaluation to student performance results, 

and whether they use evaluation data for decisions 

about compensation, tenure, and dismissal. Randi 

Weingarten, the president of the nation’s secondlargest 

teachers’ union (the American Federation of 

Teachers), announced in early 2010 that the union 

was ready to work with districts and states to overhaul 

evaluation practices to better meet the needs 

of teachers and students. “Our system of evaluating 

teachers has never been adequate,” Weingarten said. 

“For too long and too often, teacher evaluation — 

in both design and implementation — has failed to 

achieve what must be our goal: continuously improving 

and informing teaching so as to better educate 

all students.”7 

A handful of districts around the country have 

improved teacher evaluation systems. For example, 

in Denver; Toledo and Dayton, Ohio; and, more 

recently, New Haven, Conn., teachers and district officials 

have hammered out new collective-bargaining 

agreements, which include teacher evaluation measures 

leading to increased pay for superior performance. 

Efforts to improve teacher evaluation systems 

are also under way in such districts as Ann Arbor, 

Mich.; Chicago, Ill.; and Prince George’s County, 

Md. In each case, the primary sticking point inhibiting 

change is the possibility of removing ineffective 

teachers based on their students’ performance. After 

all, if teachers who have previously received “outstanding” 

evaluations are suddenly judged on their 

actual effectiveness, administrators will be pressed to 

act upon newly revealed low performers when results 

are transparent for the first time. As a result, teachers 

and their unions often fear that districts will use 

teacher ratings based on student test scores primarily 

to weed out the low performers, rather than to 

reward better teachers.8 For example, in Washington, 

D.C., Chancellor Michelle Rhee faced stiff opposition 

to her efforts to revamp teacher evaluation and 

compensation.9 To continue the momentum for 

change, policymakers need more information about 

performance evaluation systems that work, and how 

they can be adopted in schools and districts across 

the United States. Fortunately, we have an excellent 

example on both these fronts in Singapore. 


Why examine Singapore 

Singapore’s rigorous teacher performance 

management system enjoys very high 

levels of support among teachers, policymakers, 

and government officials. 

Singapore has valuable lessons to offer U.S. policymakers 

because of its strengths in two important 

areas. First, as a country, Singapore has been able to 

demonstrate extraordinary student learning results. 

For example, it consistently rates among the top 

countries in the world on international rankings of 

student achievement in science, math, and literacy.10 

Second, Singapore’s rigorous teacher performance 

management system appears to enjoy very high levels 

of support among teachers, policymakers, and government 

officials.11 A survey conducted by the Ministry 

of Education in 2007, for example, found that 

the majority of teachers favored an even stronger link 

between performance and pay than the plan provided.12 

These facts alone suggest that we can learn 

something from Singapore’s approach to human 

capital management. 

An Overview. Singapore — a small island nation 

of 5.4 million people that sits at the southernmost 

tip of the Malaysian peninsula — became an autonomous 

nation in 1965 (see Figure 1). From the outset, 

Singapore faced enormous challenges. It has no natural 

resources, a small land mass, and a relatively small 

population. Its immediate neighbors, Malaysia and 

Indonesia, are both poorer countries that have dealt 

with years of political turmoil, export dependency, 

and extreme poverty despite an abundance of natural 

resources. They serve as constant reminders of what 

Singapore has at stake. Meanwhile, the growing 

economic success of two of its largest neighbors — 

China and India — has created opportunities as 

well as challenges for Singapore. 

Its economic vulnerability may explain why Singaporeans 

tolerate a highly centralized government 

that practices what some observers refer to as “soft 

authoritarianism.”13 Government policy influences 

many aspects of people’s lives, including housing 

(most Singaporeans live in high-rise buildings in 

apartments that are subsidized by the government) 

and transportation (there are high taxes on cars, and 

the government severely restricts the number of cars 

on the road). 

Visitors to Singapore repeatedly hear that the 

country’s only national resource is its people, and 

that its viability as a country depends on its citizens’ 

ability to contribute meaningfully to the world’s 

economy. Singapore’s eagerness to import talent from 

overseas is an indication of the value that various sectors 

of the economy, including education, place on 

academic achievement. While Singapore has an extremely 

stringent immigration policy for low-skilled 

workers, industry leaders are encouraged to attract 

talented people from overseas to become either permanent 

residents or citizens. This has led to a large 

and vibrant community of expatriates on the island, 

people from all over the globe who relocate to Singapore 

to work in industries such as finance, law, and 

health as well as education. 

Comparing Singapore to the United States. Singapore 

differs from the United States in several key 

respects. The scale and natural resources of the U.S. 

are dramatically larger, as is the size of the U.S. population 

and its political and economic role in world 

affairs. The education system in Singapore is tightly 

regulated by a centralized government, whereas in 

the United States, primary and secondary education 

fall largely under state and local, rather than federal, 

control. This makes Singapore more similar in size 

and governance to some U.S. states (e.g., Minnesota 

and Wisconsin) and even to a few of our largest 

urban school districts (e.g., New York City and Los 

Angeles). 

4 | lessons from singapore www.opportunityculture.org

figure 1. Singapore’s position in Southeast Asia 

NEPAL 

BHUTAN 

CHINA 

INDIA 

BANGLADESH 

MYANMAR 

THAILAND 

VIETNAM 

LAOS 

CAMBODIA 

SRI LANKA 

MALAYSIA 

MALAYSIA 

Jurong 

SINGAPORE 

 

Seletar 

Singapore 

 

Pulau Ubin 

Bedok 

 

Changi 

INDONESIA 

SINGAPORE STRAIT 

Pulau Tekon 

Singapore and the U.S. have important similarities 

as well. Like the United States, Singapore has 

a highly diverse population, both ethnically and 

religiously (see Figure 2). Approximately 77 percent 

of Singaporeans are of Chinese descent, while 14 

percent are Malay and 8 percent are Indian.14 Strong 

religious differences exist as well. Buddhism, Islam, 

Hinduism, Confucianism and Taoism, Christianity, 

and Sikhism are all practiced alongside one another, 

often in close physical proximity. It is common to see 

Chinese temples on the same block with mosques 

Like the United States, Singapore 

has a highly diverse population, both 

ethnically and religiously. 

and Christian churches. English is the official language 

of Singapore, but other languages are widely 

spoken. Estimates suggest that more than 40 percent 

of Singapore’s students speak a language other than 


figure 2. The Ethnic and Religious Diversity of Singapore’s People 

Ethnicity 

Other 1% 

Catholic 5% 

Religion 

Malay 14% 

Indian 

8% 

Chinese 77% 

Other 

1% 

None 15% 

Christian 10% 

Buddhist 42% 

Hindu 

4% 

Taoist 

8% 

Muslim 15% 

Source: Central Intelligence Agency. World Factbook, East and Southeast Asia: Singapore. Retrieved April 2, 2010 from 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html 

English at home.15 In addition, as in the United 

States, Singapore has wide economic diversity, as 

illustrated by the country’s Gini coefficient, a common 

measure of inequality in the distribution of 

family income within a country. Values range from 

0 to 1, with lower values representing greater equality. 

Singapore’s Gini coefficient was 0.481 in 2008, making 

it the 30th most unequal country on a list of 

134 countries, above even the United States, which 

was 43rd.16 

Ninety-eight percent of Singapore’s 

sixth-grade students pass exams more 

rigorous than the eighth-grade NAEP 

mathematics test in the U.S. — nearly 

triple the percentage of proficient 

eighth-grade U.S. students. 

However, what makes Singapore most useful 

as an example to U.S. educators and policymakers 

is that Singaporean students consistently excel on 

international exams. For the past five years, Singapore 

has ranked among the top four countries in the 

world on the Trends in International Mathematics 

and Science Study (TIMSS) science and math tests 

and the Progress in International Reading Literacy 

Study (PIRLS) reading test (see Table 1).17 National 

assessments tell a similar story. Ninety-eight percent 

of Singaporean students passed their sixth-grade 

“leaving” exam in 2009.18 U.S. scholars comparing 

this exam to the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress in the U.S. (NAEP) have concluded that 

the Singaporean sixth-grade exam in mathematics is 

more rigorous than the eighth-grade NAEP test.19 

In comparison, 31 percent of U.S. students tested 

proficient in reading on the eighth-grade NAEP test, 

while 34 percent were proficient in math and 29 percent 

in science, according to the most recent results 


table 1. Achievement on Comparable International Exams, Singapore versus the United States 

Exam Singapore United States 

PIRLS Literacy (2006) 

4th grade 

TIMSS Math (2007) 

4th Grade 

TIMSS Math (2007) 

8th Grade 

TIMMS Science (2007) 

4th Grade 

TIMMS Science (2007) 

8th Grade 

6th-grade “leaving” exam 

(compared to the 8th-grade NAEP) 

Score: 558; Rank: 4 Score: 540; Rank: 18 





98% proficient overall 31% proficient in reading, 

34% proficient in math, 

29% proficient in science 

for each subject.20 In summary, students in Singapore 

are learning far more far younger. 

While extraordinary student achievement in Singapore 

is undoubtedly the result of many factors — 

high levels of parental engagement and enormous national 

will to excel in core academics among them 

— it could not occur without a corps of extremely 

skilled and effective teachers. Singapore has developed 

this teaching corps through a deliberate 

strategy. Conversations with Singaporean education 

officials suggest that Singapore has carefully built a 

teacher performance management system designed 

to promote and enhance teacher excellence. In this 

report, we describe how Singaporean officials use this 

model to support excellence at several points in 

a teacher’s career. 

Singapore’s Teacher Evaluation System: 

Using Competencies to Achieve Outstanding 

Results 

In 2001, Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE) 

overhauled its existing teacher evaluation system and 

replaced it with a more comprehensive approach, 

which it called the Enhanced Performance Management 

System. The new system represented a major 

shift from focusing teacher evaluation on observable 

characteristics, such as subject matter expertise, classroom 

management, and instructional skills, to emphasizing 

the underlying characteristics, or “competencies,” 

that lead to exceptional performance.21 The 

development and measurement of individual competencies 

are used in conjunction with achievement of 

performance outcomes to evaluate, career track, promote, 

and pay teachers. The performance outcomes, 

which we describe later in this paper, include student 

learning but span far beyond that to other aspects of 

Competencies are used in conjunction 

with performance outcomes to evaluate, 

career track, promote, and pay teachers 

in Singapore. 

child development, collaboration with parents, and 

contribution to the school community. 

Identifying competencies that distinguish top 

performers from the rest. “Competency” often 

describes any work-related skill. When Singapore’s 


At the center of Singapore’s new 

performance management system are 

“competencies,” the underlying characteristics 

that distinguish the 

best performers from the rest. 

MOE uses the term, however, it is referring specifically 

to the underlying traits and habits — patterns 

of thinking, feeling, acting, or speaking — that cause 

a person to be successful in a specific job or role.22 

Because different jobs have different demands, the 

competencies that contribute to outstanding performance 

differ as well. For example, being an outstanding 

teacher requires a different set of competencies 

than those for an outstanding principal. Validating 

the competencies necessary for a particular role, as 

well as the levels of increasingly successful behavior 

within each competency, is possible if developers are 

willing to invest in the underlying research.23 

The research method Singapore used to develop 

its competency model was designed in the United 

States in the 1970s by Harvard University researcher 

David McClelland.24 His approach is fairly simple: 

researchers select two groups of current job holders, 

one that has displayed average performance according 

to an agreed-upon set of outcome measures, and 

another that has displayed outstanding performance 

on the same set of measures. Researchers then use a 

structured interview technique called the Behavior 

Event Interview (BEI) to elicit detailed stories that 

reveal how very high performers differ from more 

typical or lower-performing job holders.25 

During the BEI, selected job holders are interviewed 

for two to three hours about details of 

what they did, said, thought, and felt as they went 

through critical incidents at work. These interviews 

are recorded, transcribed, and coded for patterns of 

behavior. The patterns displayed by both groups are 

recorded as baseline behaviors, while those exhibited 

only by the high performers are used to develop a 

scale of increasingly effective behaviors associated 

with that competency.26 For example, the competency 

called “initiative” focuses on exhibiting the 

drive and actions to do more than is expected to accomplish 

a challenging task. As the scale increases, 

so does the complexity of the actions associated with 

this competency, from “acting decisively in critical 

situations” to the more sophisticated “identifying 

and preventing potential problems before they 

happen.”27 

Singapore’s teacher competency model. There 

are three major roles in Singaporean schools — 

teachers, principals, and school specialists. In order 

to develop a competency model for each of them, 

education ministry officials hired trained researchers 

and interviewers from a human resources firm 

based in the United States.28 The teacher competency 

model the firm developed for Singapore includes 

three tools: 1) short, broad definitions of the 

competencies that distinguish high performance; 

2) rating scales of increasingly more effective levels 

of behavior within each competency; and 3) competency 

level targets for each job.29 The strength 

of the model is its ability to correlate a job holder’s 

performance on the competency scale to successful 

attainment of work-related goals.30 Increasing levels 

of competence are designed to enable teachers to 

perform better in the key result areas identified as 

critical to effective teaching in Singapore — student 

learning and development, contribution to the school 

community, working with parents, and professional 

development.31 

Researchers use structured interviews 

called Behavior Event Interviews 

to elicit detailed stories that reveal how 

top performers differ from typical 

performers in a job. 


figure 3. Singapore’s Teaching Competency Clusters 

Nurturing the Whole Child 

(Core competency) 

Cultivating Knowledge 

Competencies in this cluster: 

 

 

 

 

Teaching 

Competency 

Clusters 

Working with Others 


 

 

Knowing Self and Others 

Emotional intelligence 

competencies, which are not 

formally evaluated 

Winning Hearts and Minds 


 

environment 

 

Source: Derived from Edmund Lim’s “Appendix B: Description of the Performance Management Process,” Susan Sclafani 

and Edward Lim, Rethinking Human Capital: Singapore As A Model for Teacher Development (Aspen Institute, 2008). 

Available: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/education%20and%20society%20program/ 

SingaporeEDU.pdf 


The Singapore competency model for teaching 

consists of one core competency, “Nurturing the 

Whole Child,” and four other major competency 

clusters, “Cultivating Knowledge,” “Winning Hearts 

and Minds,” “Working with Others,” and “Knowing 

Self and Others.” 32 Each cluster has two to four 

competencies. For example, “Cultivating Knowledge” 

has four key competencies: subject mastery, 

analytical thinking, initiative, and teaching creatively 

(see Figure 3). The competencies are broken 

down further into progressive levels of more effective 

behaviors based on the high-performer interviews, 

and these are used as rating scales. Each level includes 

descriptions of the specific behaviors a teacher should 

demonstrate at a particular level of mastery. We did 

not have access to the competencies for all of the 

teaching roles the MOE offers, but Table 2 shows 

the competencies distinguishing beginning teachers 

from master teachers. 

This teaching competency model forms the bedrock 

of Singapore’s Enhanced Performance Management 

System (EPMS). Recognizing that the quality 

of its teaching force is vital to its success, the Ministry 

of Education developed this system to promote 

increasingly high levels of performance, even from 

teachers who are already excellent. Ministry officials 

responsible for hiring and school leaders responsible 

for leading teachers use the competency model in 

conjunction with the achievement of performance 

goals at each stage of employment to: 

Hire and train aspiring teachers; 

Set annual competency achievement targets; 

Evaluate competency levels throughout the year; 

Match each teacher to a career path; and 

Determine annual bonuses. 


table 2. Description of Singapore’s Teacher Competencies 

Competency 

Cluster Competency All Teachers Master Teachers 

Nurturing the 

 

Cultivating 

Knowledge 

 

Hearts and 

Minds 

 

Others 

n/a 

 

Mastery 

Analytical 

Thinking 

Initiative 

Teaching 

Creatively 

Understanding 

Environment 

Developing 

Others 

Partnering with 

Parents 

 

Teams 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

relationships 

 

importance 

 

situations 

 

 

they worsen 

 

 

 

specific techniques and approaches 

to teach concepts 

 

questioning 

 

 

 

resistance 

 

policies 

 

immediate developmental needs 

 

teachers that draws on personal 

experience and knowledge 

 

ties, student progress, and policies 

 

 

 

information 

 

expectations of others 

 

learn from colleagues to attain work 

targets and goals 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

multidimensional problems 

 

opportunities 

 

before they happen 

 

benefits 

 

 

comprehension 

 

 

outside classroom 

 

 

 

knowledge to attain positive outcomes 

 

education vision 

 

 

school’s relation to the external world 

 

 

through professional development 

 

 

with parents 

 

 

 

teacher effectiveness 

Source: Derived from Edmund Lim’s “Appendix B: Description of the Performance Management Process,” Susan Sclafani and 

Edward Lim, Rethinking Human Capital: Singapore As A Model for Teacher Development (Aspen Institute, 2008). Available: http:// 

www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/education%20and%20society%20program/SingaporeEDU.pdf

Hiring and Training Aspiring Teachers 

As in many other countries, convincing the best and 

brightest students to consider a teaching career is not 

an easy task. The lure of other professions, such as 

medicine, finance, and law, is as strong in Singapore 

as it is in many other parts of the world. Yet topperforming 

students in Singapore consistently apply 

to become teachers, enabling the Ministry of Education 

to recruit teachers who graduated from the top 

30 percent of their secondary school classes.33 It is 

outside the scope of this report to closely examine 

Singapore’s teacher recruitment strategy, but ministry 

officials say that they have worked hard to refine 

the incentive structure to attract a strong candidate 

pool, offering teachers opportunities to earn additional 

pay and benefits, advance in their teaching 

career, and attend professional development training 

(see Figure 4).34 Once they have assembled this pool, 

the MOE uses the competency model to screen and 

train prospective teachers. 

Initial screening. All public school teachers 

in Singapore work for the Ministry of Education. 

Teachers are hired prior to their training, which occurs 

for all teachers at one institution, the National 

Institute of Education (NIE). Teachers can enter 

The strength of Singapore’s model is the 

statistical correlation of individuals’ 

competencies on scales of increasingly 

effective behaviors to successful attainment 

of work-related goals. 

Singapore’s Education Ministry officials and 

school leaders use the competency model in 

conjunction with the achievement of performance 

goals at each stage of employment to: 

Hire and train aspiring teachers; 

Set annual competency achievement 

targets; 

Evaluate competency levels throughout 

the year; 

Match each teacher to a career path; and 

Determine annual bonuses. 

training at different stages: right after they complete 

secondary school (equivalent to the end of 12th grade 

in the United States), after they complete a university 

degree, or as a midcareer change. In initial screens, 

the MOE considers only candidates with relatively 

high test scores who graduated in the top third of 

their high school class.35 This is true for recent graduates 

as well as for lateral-entry teachers who leave 

other careers to become teachers. 

Officials then hold in-person interviews with candidates 

to assess whether they demonstrate the competencies 

that the ministry has identified as essential 

prior to training. Although the MOE does not expect 

candidates to demonstrate the same level of competence 

as experienced educators, the competencies it 

uses to evaluate them are aligned with the competencies 

in the EPMS used to evaluate current teachers. 

Consequences of competency screening. The 

rigorous initial screen that the MOE uses to determine 

who enters the teaching profession has several 

ramifications for how the ministry manages other 

aspects of its human capital system. For example, 

both NIE and MOE supervisors expect the vast 

majority of candidates to become successful teachers 

if they receive the right mix of training, support, 

and accountability, because they already possess the 

underlying competencies necessary for success.36 This 

may explain why, in general, the performance management 

system in Singapore is largely geared toward 

constant improvement, rather than weeding out low 

performers. Conversations with government officials 

support this notion. When asked about processes 

for dismissing low-performing teachers, interviewees 

uniformly stated that dismissal was a low priority 

except in cases of egregious misconduct.37 The rea- 


figure 4. Incentives for Incoming Teachers in Singapore 

Attractive compensation. Teachers are relatively 

well paid, have performance bonus opportunities, 

and have excellent benefits. 

Multiple opportunities for career advancement. 

There are three education tracks, each with several 

levels of advancement. 

Ongoing professional support. Includes paid leave, 

scholarships for advanced study, online training 

opportunities, and opportunities to collaborate 

with colleagues. 

Chance to be part of a vitally important and 

revered profession. Throughout Singapore, there 

are recruit ing posters inviting people to become 

teachers so they can “Mould the Future of the 

Nation.” 

Source: Susan Sclafani and Edward Lim, Rethinking 

Human Capital: Singapore As A Model for Teacher Development 

(Aspen Institute, 2008). Available: http://www 

.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/ 

education%20and%20society%20program/Singapore 

EDU.pdf 

sons for dismissal are transparent — they are widely 

publicized — but rarely need to be enforced. According 

to interviewees, the MOE has very carefully 

sought to enhance public confidence in the teaching 

profession in part to make it more attractive for talented 

candidates.38 

Attrition statistics back up these claims. Officials 

estimate that about 3 percent of the teachers in Singapore 

leave in a given year for any reason, excluding 

those who retire.39 This means that an even smaller 

number of teachers are dismissed and, unlike in the 

U.S., where large numbers of students fail to achieve 

adequate growth, student results in Singapore suggest 

that the low rate of dismissals is actually due to 

higher performance rather than an inability or unwillingness 

to measure teacher effectiveness. 

Training. The National Institute of Education 

works closely with the ministry in the design and 

emphasis of its training programs, which include 

coursework as well as several opportunities to teach 

in a supervised setting. Having one training institute 

ensures that all teachers are prepared to a uniform 

standard, and it also allows the ministry to tightly 

control the number of students who are admitted 

each year.40 

In addition to grades and instructor comments 

on coursework, candidates get extensive feedback 

during their supervised teaching experiences. At the 

end of their fourth and final year in the bachelor’s 

degree program, for example, candidates teach in a 

school for 10 weeks under the direction of their NIE 

supervisor and mentor teachers. During this experience, 

supervisors work alongside teaching candidates, 

conduct frequent observations, hold ongoing discussions 

about their performance, and give candidates 

specific assignments to improve their craft.41 To 

receive a passing grade on this experience, candidates 

have to demonstrate both strong teaching skills and 

the underlying competencies for successful teachers. 

Supervisors from NIE, the cooperating teacher, and 

the school principal jointly evaluate the candidate, 

although NIE is the main decision-maker.42 

Setting Annual Competency 

Achievement Targets 

All teachers begin the year by developing their annual 

performance goals, which they record on a standardized 

evaluation form (see Figure 5). According to 

the ministry, these performance goals address both 

the “what” and “how” of performance.43 Although 

accomplishing work targets, such as improvements 

in student learning, is critical, teachers and their 

supervisors also set individual performance goals for 

reaching higher levels of competence, which captures 

how teachers are able to achieve these work targets. 

After looking at their final evaluation from the 

previous year, teachers develop goals that span four 

key result areas: 1) holistic development of students 

through quality learning, co-curricular activities, 

and pastoral care and well-being; 2) contribution to 

the school; 3) collaboration with parents; and 4) professional 

development. For example, a teacher might 

set a goal to improve student understanding 

of a particular mathematical concept that the previ- 


figure 

Evaluation Form in Singapore 

 

Goals. Specific work goals that include compe - 

tency targets and other performance goals for the 

next year 

Competencies. Current competency ratings 

PD plans. Training and development plans for the 

next year 

Feedback. Reviews and comments by the teacher 

and supervisor regarding work performance and 

competencies as well as additional comments or 

review by a second evaluator 

Source: Susan Sclafani and Edward Lim, Rethinking 

Human Capital: Singapore As A Model for Teacher Development 

(Aspen Institute, 2008). Available: http://www 

.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/ 

education%20and%20society%20program/Singapore 

EDU.pdf 

ous year’s students did not master adequately (the 

what), as well as how he might do this by reaching 

the next level of competence on the competency 

“Teaching Creatively.”44 

According to officials, the MOE does not set 

requirements about how much weight teachers and 

schools should give to student achievement results as 

part of the evaluation process, but individual schools 

do set internal expectations.45 As a result, some schools 

weigh student achievement scores more heavily than 

others. But, in contrast to many teacher evaluations in 

the United States, some part of every teacher’s evaluation 

in Singapore is based on student learning.46 

Once teachers have completed a draft of their 

standardized evaluation form — which they refer 

to as a “work review form” — they meet with the 

supervising officer at their school to make sure their 

goals and plans align with departmental, school, and 

national goals. At this meeting, the supervisor and 

the teacher also review and agree on the professional 

development and internal support that the teacher 

will need to meet her goals.47 

Evaluating Competency Levels 

throughout the Year 

The work review form is not a one-time exercise that 

gets filed away and forgotten. Throughout the year, 

supervisors monitor each teacher’s progress on their 

competency goals and other work performance goals. 

Informally, supervisors frequently observe and confer 

with teachers, providing coaching and guidance 

when needed. Formally, supervisors meet with teachers 

for midyear and final reviews. At the midyear 

review, teachers and supervisors assess each teacher’s 

progress toward her goals. During these meetings, 

supervisors offer constructive criticism and advice 

about targeted professional development opportunities 

outside the school, as well as suggestions about 

staff members within the school from whom teachers 

can request help. 

At the end of the year, teachers meet once more 

with their supervisor to discuss whether they have 

met the goals established at the beginning of the 

year. The year-end appraisal has multiple purposes, 

each of which is designed to improve teacher performance. 

First, the year-end appraisal sets the stage for 

future growth. By comparing actual performance 

with planned performance, teachers and their supervisors 

come to an agreement about the next stages of 

growth a teacher needs to reach, and this information 

is recorded in the year-end review.48 This review 

also informs decisions about teachers’ career tracks 

and performance bonuses, described in the following 

sections.49 

Singapore offers three different career 

tracks — for teaching, leadership, and 

specialists — each of which offers teachers 

the opportunity to earn greater stature, 

responsibility, and pay. 


Matching Each Teacher to a Career Path 

Singapore has a robust career ladder system that was 

introduced (and continues to be refined) in an effort 

to enhance teacher effectiveness and ensure that the 

highest performing teachers have incentives to stay in 

the profession. Indeed, their efforts are backed by research; 

studies across sectors repeatedly suggest that 

high-performing employees are more likely to stay 

in a profession if they have opportunities to advance 

their careers, and if they are generously compensated 

for their superior work.50 

Singapore offers three different career tracks — for 

teaching, leadership, and specialists — each of which 

offers teachers the opportunity to earn greater stature, 

responsibility, and pay (see Figure 6). Teachers 

who receive superior ratings on their annual evaluations 

are eligible to become master or senior teachers 

within the teaching track, taking on additional responsibility 

for mentoring and assisting other teachers. 

With continued outstanding performance and a 

matching competency profile, teachers can enter the 

leadership track and become school principals or take 

leadership positions within the education ministry. 

Teachers who have exceptional content knowledge 

are eligible to enter the senior specialist track, where 

they conduct research and share with teachers the 

best practices related to their subject expertise. 

All of these tracks have salary grades that are designed 

to provide all educators (teachers, specialists, 

and leaders) with an incentive to advance as far as 

they can. A senior teacher, for example, can make a 

salary equivalent to a school vice principal, so excellent 

teachers do not have to leave teaching to earn 

higher pay.51 Advancement in any of the career tracks 

requires meeting work targets and demonstrating 

increasing levels of competencies. 

On an annual basis, teachers use their year-end review 

forms to indicate their career aspirations. Supervisors 

also have an opportunity to weigh in on the direction 

they think a teacher’s career should take. On 

the review form, supervisors rate teachers on their 

“current estimated potential,” which is the highest 

grade they think that a teacher can achieve prior to 

retirement. This evaluation, while subjective, is based 

on observations, discussions with the teachers, and 

student performance data, as well as each teacher’s 

contribution to the school and community.52 Current 

estimated potential provides a formal way for 

supervisors to identify teachers with the capacity to 

take on additional responsibilities within teaching, 

or those who are strong enough in the required competencies 

to move to a different career track if they 

choose.53 

The levels within each career track (for example, 

in the teaching track: teacher, senior teacher, lead 

teacher, master teacher, and principal master teacher) 

are tied to specific competency levels, so it is clear 

to both the teacher and the supervisor what constitutes 

the next level of competence as well as what 

indicates outstanding competence. A description of 

the competency levels is attached to the back of the 

work review form and used frequently. According 

to a ministry official, during the review process, the 

competencies are “defined, highlighted, discussed, 

reviewed, and evaluated with the aim that the competencies 

can be manifested and nurtured in the 

teachers.”54 

Determining Annual Bonuses 

As part of the year-end review, supervisors must note, 

in narrative form, how well teachers performed during 

the year. In these narratives, supervisors describe 

teacher’s strengths, unique skills, areas of improvement 

on both the competency ratings and on other 

work performance goals, work-related challenges, 

and their “current estimated potential,” described 

above. These narratives, along with the teacher’s 

own written self-assessment, are used to determine 

whether individual teachers will receive a performance 

bonus and how much they will receive. In 

order to make the process as fair and impartial as 

possible, ministry officials ask a “countersigning officer,” 

a person at a higher grade than the teacher being 

evaluated, to provide additional perspective on the 

teacher’s performance.55 


figure 6. Career Tracks in Education 

Director of General Education 

Director 

Chief Specialist 

Deputy Director 

Cluster Superintendent 

Principal Specialist 

Principal 

Lead Specialist 

Principal Master Teacher 

Vice Principal 

Senior Specialist 2 

Master Teacher 

Head of Department 

Senior Specialist 1 

Lead Teacher 

 

Leadership Track 

For a career in school 

administration 

Specialist Track 

For a career in curriculum 

and instructional design, 

educational psychology and 

guidance, educational testing 

and measurement, or 

educational research and 

statistics 

Senior Teacher 

Teaching Track 

For a career focused on 

excellence in teaching 

All Classroom Teachers 

Source: MOE website: http://www.moe.gov.sg/careers/teach/career-info/ 

A school committee made up of all heads of departments 

within the school, the vice principal, and 

the principal meets at the end of the year to determine 

staff bonuses. They consider each teacher’s year-end 

review, rank each teacher on a forced ranking scale, 

and decide on the award amount.56 These bonuses 

typically range from a half-month’s salary, for performance 

that exceeds expectations in a few areas, 

to four months’ salary, for outstanding performance 

in multiple areas. Approximately 5 to 10 percent of 

the teachers across the country are typically deemed 

outstanding, thus qualifying for the top bonuses.57 At 

this meeting, the panel also decides whether to recommend 

individual teachers for advancement within a 

particular track or to move, if they wish, to a different 

track. The MOE has ultimate approval for these promotions, 

but the school-level committee makes an initial 

recommendation. Moving to the next salary grade 

is not automatic. In order to be promoted, teachers’ 

year-end evaluations must include evidence that they 

have increased their competencies and attained their 

other performance goals in multiple areas.58 


say that teachers are to be given “encouragement, 

feedback, and guidance so they can grow as professionals 

and contribute more effectively to a better 

education system.”60 Anecdotal evidence from news 

reports and interviews suggests that rather than 

resisting the intensive amount of feedback they receive, 

most teachers appear to respect the evaluation 

system, although it is hard to determine this with 

certainty. Teachers appear to support the evaluation 

system for multiple reasons: 

These high-stakes decisions regarding performance 

bonuses and advancement opportunities can 

be controversial. According to letters to the editor 

and news reports, these decisions are particularly 

sensitive; some teachers do not think the process is 

conducted fairly, and some believe that linking pay to 

performance creates a cadre of teachers who lack creativity. 

The ministry responds to these complaints by 

saying that the majority of teachers surveyed support 

pay for performance because they agree that it helps 

with retention and motivates all teachers to perform 

more effectively.59 

Teacher’s Perceptions of the EPMS 

While the formal and informal review processes are 

critical steps in holding teachers accountable for their 

performance, MOE officials stress that evaluations 

are not designed to be punitive. On the contrary, 

MOE officials describe the process as collegial and 

Teachers accept the validity of the EPMS 

Teachers are evaluated against a highly differentiated 

competency model that is based on research 

conducted in Singapore on outstanding teachers, 

so teachers have reason to accept the validity and 

relevance of the evaluation tool. 

Competency level expectations increase with 

experience. Senior teachers are expected to demonstrate 

higher competency levels than new 

teachers.61 

Teachers are heavily involved in identifying and 

setting their own goals, which gives them a sense 

of control over their own professional careers. 62 

EPMS clarifies next steps 

The work review plan clearly lays out the performance 

goal areas in which teachers need to focus 

and the competency levels they need to reach to 

achieve these performance goals. 

Conversations with supervisors about competence 

and other performance gaps are accompanied by 

specific recommendations about where teachers 

can go for additional support, so teachers are immediately 

given information about how they can 

improve.63 

EPMS rarely leads to dismissal 

Teachers in Singapore are rarely dismissed for 

poor performance, so the threat of actually losing 

one’s job is relatively minor.64 Even struggling 

new teachers are given lots of support in the 

form of intensive coaching by an assigned men- 


tor, grade-level chair, and/or department head. If, 

after a year, a teacher fails to improve, has a poor 

attitude, or lacks professionalism, then she will be 

asked to leave the profession, but that is the exception 

rather than the rule.65 As noted above, this 

low-dismissal environment is made possible by 

Singapore’s rigorous, competency-based screening 

of candidates before they become teachers, and 

by other policies that enhance the quality of the 

entering teaching pool. 

Conclusion 

Perhaps the most striking feature of Singapore’s 

teacher evaluation system, and the process that produced 

it, is the stark contrast to the United States. 

All Singaporean schools and teachers have access 

to a world-class, research-based set of competencies 

that are correlated with performance on outcome 

goals. In contrast, it is not clear that any U.S. 

schools have access to competency models near this 

level of performance-related validity. In Singapore, 

implementation varies from school to school, but all 

schools use performance outcome goals — including 

student learning results — along with competency 

ratings to determine teacher promotion and pay. In 

the U.S., the talk on this front significantly exceeds 

the action. Even the boldest, most controversial 

teacher evaluation and pay plans in the U.S. fall far 

Despite the enormous will and expense 

it must have taken to design and fully 

implement this teacher evaluation system, 

Singapore got the job done. Even the 

boldest plans in the U.S. fall short in 

comparison. 

short in comparison. In Singapore, performance 

goals include soft measures of student development, 

including children’s health and general welfare. In 

the U.S., we regularly complain that it is unfair to 

ask that teachers contribute to these building blocks 

of highly effective learning. And most strikingly, 

despite the enormous will and expense it must have 

taken to design and fully implement this teacher 

evaluation system, Singapore got the job done. No 

state or district in the U.S. comes close, in practice or 

in plan. Singapore’s learning results are as world-class 

as its teacher evaluation system. What would happen 

if even one state or one large district in the U.S. were 

to embark on the same journey that Singapore did in 

the early 2000s 


Notes 

1. I.V.S. Mullis, M.O. Martin, and P. Foy, TIMSS 2007 

International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s 

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 

at the Fourth and Eighth Grades (Cambridge: TIMSS & 

PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College, 2008). 

Available: http://timss.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/intl_reports. 

html; M.O. Martin, I.V.S. Mullis, and P. Foy, TIMMS 2007 

International Science Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in 

International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth 

and Eighth Grades (Cambridge: TIMSS & PIRLS International 

Study Center, Boston College, 2008), Available: 

http://timss.bc.edu/TIMSS2007/intl_reports.html; I.V.S. 

Mullis, M.O. Martin, A.M. Kennedy, and P. Foy, IEA’s 

Progress in International Reading Literacy Study in Primary 

School in 40 Countries (Cambridge: TIMSS & PIRLS International 

Study Center, Boston College, 2008). Available: 

http://timss.bc.edu/pirls2006/intl_rpt.html. 

2. Alan Ginsburg, Steven Lienwand, Terry Anstrom, and 

Elizabeth Pollock, What the United States Can Learn From 

Singapore’s World-Class Mathematics System And What Singapore 

Can Learn From the United States (Washington, 

DC: American Institutes for Research, 2005). Available: 

http://www.air.org/files/Singapore_Report_Bookmark_ 

Version1.pdf. 

3. For a summary of research on curricula for academically 

gifted students in the U.S., see: N. Colangelo, S.G. Assouline, 

and M.U.M. Gross (Eds.), A Nation Deceived: How 

Schools Hold Back America’s Brightest Students. (Iowa City: 

University of Iowa, 2004). 

4. The New Teacher Project, The Widget Effect: Our 

National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in 

Teacher Effectiveness (New York: The New Teacher Project, 

2009); Coalition for Student Achievement, Smart Options: 

Investing the Recovery Funds for Student Success (2009), 

Available: http://www.coalitionforstudentachievement 

.org/pdf/ARRA-FINAL.pdf; T. Toch and R. Rotherman, 

Rush to Judgment: Teacher Evaluation in Public Educa - 

tion (Washington, DC: Education Sector, 2008). Available: 

http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/RushToJudgment 

_ES_Jan08.pdf. 

5. The New Teacher Project, Hiring, Assignment, and 

Transfer in Chicago Public Schools (Washington, DC: The 

New Teacher Project, 2007). Available: http://www.tntp 

.org/files/TNTPAnalysis-Chicago.pdf. 

6. Weisberg, Sexton, Mulher, and Keeling, 2009. 

7. Randi Weingarten, “A New Path Forward: Four Approaches 

to Quality Teaching and Better Schools” (Washington, 

DC: Speech to National Press Club, January 12, 

2010). Available: http://aft.3cdn.net/227d12e668432ca48e_ 

twm6b90k1.pdf. 

8. For example, see Weingarten, 2010; Liam Goldrick, 

Getting the Balance Right: Federal Policy on Effective Teaching 

(Santa Cruz, CA: The New Teacher Center, 2010). 

Available: http://www.newteachercenter.org/pdfs/goldrickfedpolicy_effective_teaching.pdf; 

Stacy T. Khadaroo, “Education 

reform: Can poor test scores get a teacher fired” The 

Christian Science Monitor, March 17, 2010. Available: http:// 

www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0317/Education-reform- 

Can-poor-test-scores-get-a-teacher-fired. 

9. Bill Turque, “Rhee Works on Overhaul of Teacher 

Evaluations,” Washington Post, April 7, 2009. Available: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/06/AR2009040603600.html; 

Lauren Smith, 

“D.C. Schools Chief Michelle Rhee Fights Union Over 

Teacher Pay,” U.S. News & World Report, December 21, 

2009. Available: http://www.usnews.com/news/national/ 

articles/2009/12/21/dc-schools-chief-michelle-rhee-fightsunion-over-teacher-pay.html. 

10. I.V.S. Mullis, M.O. Martin, and P. Foy, 2008; M.O. 

Martin, I.V.S. Mullis, and P. Foy, 2008; I.V.S. Mullis, M.O. 

Martin, A.M. Kennedy, and P. Foy, 2007. 

11. Siew Hoong Wong, Personal correspondence, September 

3, 2009. 

12. Cheng Yang Lu, “Better Pay for Teachers Not at Odds 

with Passion,” The Straits Times, January 15, 2008. 

13. Thomas Carothers, “Democracy Without Illusions,” 

Foreign Affairs, 76,1 (1997), 85–99; Roy Denny, “Singapore, 

China, and the ‘Soft Authoritarian’ Challenge,” Asian 

Survey, 34,3, (1994), 231–242; Gordon Paul Means, “Soft 

Authoritarianism in Malaysia and Singapore.” Journal of 

Democracy, 7:4, (1996), 103–117. 

14. Central Intelligence Agency, “World Factbook. East 

and Southeast Asia: Singapore,” Retrieved April 2, 2010. 

Available: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/geos/sn.html. 

15. P. Wang-Iverson, P. Myers, and E. Lim, “Beyond 

Singapore’s Mathematics Textbooks: Focused and Flexible 

Supports for Teaching and Learning,” American Educator 

(2009), 28–38. 

16. Central Intelligence Agency, “World Factbook, Country 

Comparison: Distribution of Family Income — Gini 

Index,” Retrieved April 2, 2010. Available: https://www.cia 

.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/ 

2172rank.html. 

17. I.V.S. Mullis, M.O. Martin, and P. Foy, 2008; M.O. 

Martin, I.V.S. Mullis, and P. Foy, 2008; I.V.S. Mullis, M.O. 

Martin, A.M. Kennedy, and P. Foy, 2007.

18. A. Tan and L.S. Wan, “Heartland Schools Shine in 

PSLE,” The Straits Times, November 27, 2009. 

19. Ginsburg, Anstrom, and Pollock, 2005; J. Hoven, 

“Testimony of John Hoven On Behalf of The Center for 

Education Reform at the National Public Forum on the 

Draft 2004 Mathematics Framework,” September 24, 2001. 

Available: http://www.edreform.com/_upload/NAEPmath 

.pdf. 

20. NAEP results correspond with the following years for 

each subject: Reading (2007), Math (2009), Science (2005). 

National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Data 

Explorer (January 25, 2010). Available: http://nces.ed.gov/ 

nationsreportcard/naepdata/. 

21. J. Chew, “Principal Performance Appraisal in Singapore,” 

in Managing Teacher Appraisal and Performance: 

A Comparative Approach. Editors: D. Middlewood and 

C. Cardno (London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2001) 29–42; Susan 

Sclafani and Edward Lim, Rethinking Human Capital: Singapore 

As A Model for Teacher Development (Washington, 

DC: Aspen Institute, 2008), Available: http://www.aspen 

institute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/education%20 

and%20society%20program/SingaporeEDU.pdf. 

22. In his work for the U.S. Information Service in the 

early 1970s, David McClelland began using the term “competency” 

to refer to the underlying patterns of thinking, 

feeling, acting, or speaking that cause a person to be successful 

in a job or role. See D.C. McClelland and C. Dailey, 

Improving Officer Selection for the Foreign Service (Boston: 

McBer and Company, 1972); D.C. McClelland, L.M. Spencer, 

and S. Spencer, Competency Assessment Methods: History 

and State of the Art (Boston: McBer and Company, 1990). 

23. David C. McClelland, “Identifying Competencies 

with Behavioral-Event Interviews,” Psychological Science. 9,5, 

(1998), 331–339. 

24. Signe Spencer, Personal correspondence, November 

11, 2009; In a 1973 paper, Dr. McClelland suggested that 

traditional ways of determining who will be successful in a 

job, such as academic aptitude and credentials, fail to predict 

performance. See David C. McClelland, “Testing for Competence 

Rather than for ‘Intelligence’,” American Psychologist, 

28 (1973), 1–14. 

25. R. Hobby, S. Crabtree, and J. Ibbetson, The school 

recruitment handbook: A guide to attracting, selecting and 

keeping outstanding teachers (London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 

2004). 

26. R. Hobby, S. Crabtree, and J. Ibbetson, 2004. 

27. Competency definitions used here are from L.M. 

Spencer and S.M. Spencer, Competence at Work, Models for 

Superior Performance (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 

1993). 

28. The Hay Group, an international human resources 

firm. Signe M. Spencer, 2009. 

29. Spencer, 2009; Sclafani and Lim, 2008. 

30. McClelland, 1998. 

31. Sclafani and Lim, 2008. 

32. The Singapore teacher competency descriptions included 

here are derived from Edmund Lim’s Description of 

the Performance Management Process, Appendix B. See Sclafani 

and Lim, 2008. 

33. M. Barber and M. Mourshed, How the world’s top performing 

school systems come out on top (McKinsey & Company, 

2007). Available: http://www.mckinsey.com/App_ 

Media/Reports/SSO/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf. 

34. Wong, 2009. 

35. High school students take the Singapore-Cambridge 

General Certificate of Education Ordinary-level (O-level) 

exam. 

36. Ng Eng Hen, “Teachers — the heart of quality education” 

(Singapore: Speech presented at the MOE Work Plan 

Seminar 2009 at the Ngee Ann Polytechnic Convention 

Centre, September 17, 2009). Available: www.moe.gov 

.sg/media/speeches/2009/09/17/work-plan-seminar.php. 

37. Wong, 2009; S. Gopinathan, Personal correspondence, 

June 2009. 

38. Wong, 2009; S. Gopinathan. Personal correspondence, 

June 2009. 

39. Wong, 2009. 

40. Each year, the ministry calculates how many teachers 

are likely to retire or leave the profession over the next few 

years, so it can advise the NIE on how many aspiring teachers 

it should admit. See Sclafani and Lim, 2008. 

41. Cheng Yang Lu and Cheah Horn MunDean, “Failing 

trainee teachers given second chance,” The Straights Times, 

February 25, 2005. 

42. Wong, 2009. 

43. Singapore Ministry of Education, Country Summary, 

OECD Country Background Report on Singapore’s 

Teacher Policies (2006). 


45. Wong, 2009. 

46. Wong, 2009. 

47. Susan Sclafani, Personal correspondence, August 19, 

2009. 

48. Scalfani and Lim, 2008. 

49. Scalfani and Lim, 2008. 

50. For example, see: J.P. Hausknecht, J. Rodda, and M.J. 

Howard, “Targeted Employee Retention: Performancebased 

and Job-related Differences in Reported Reasons 

for Staying,” Human Resource Management, 48, 2 (2009) 

269–288; C.O. Trevor, J.P. Hausknecht and M.J. Howard,

Why High and Low Performers Leave and What They Find 

Elsewhere: Job Performance Effects on Employment Transitions 

(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Center for Advanced 

Human Resource Studies (CAHRS) Working Paper Series, 

Working Paper 07–11, 2007). Available: http://digital 

commons.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrswp/466/; R.P. Steel, R.W. 

Griffeth, P.W. Hom and D.M. Lyons, “Practical retention 

policy for the practical manager,” Academy of Management 

Executive, 16, 2 (2002) 149–164; C.R. Williams and L.P. 

Livingstone, “Another Look at the Relationship between 

Performance and Voluntary Turnover,” The Academy of 

Management Journal, 37, 2 (1994) 269–298; C.O. Trevor, 

B. Gerhart, and J. Boudreau, “Voluntary Turnover and Job 

Performance: Curvilinearity and the Moderating Influences 

of Salary Growth and Promotions,” Journal of Applied 

Psychology, 82, 1 (1997) 44–61; M.C. Sturman, C.O. Trevor, 

J. Boudreau and B. Gerhart, “Is it worth it to win the talent 

war Using turnover research to evaluate the utility of 

performance-based pay,” Personnel Psychology, 56 (2003) 

997–1035; D.A. Harrison, M. Virick and S. William, 

“Working Without a Net: Time, Performance, and Turnover 

Under Maximally Contingent Rewards,” Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 81, 4 (1996) 331–345; J. Bouwens and 

L. van Lent, Effort and Selection Effects of Incentive Contracts 

(Tilburg University Discussion Paper No. 2003-130, 2003). 

Available: http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgifid=10503; and 

A. Salamin and P.W. Hom, “In Search of the Elusive 

U-Shaped Performance-Turnover Relationship: Are High 

Performing Swiss Bankers More Liable to Quit” Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 90, 6 (2005) 1204–1216. 

51. Lynn Olson, “Teaching Policy to Improve Student 

Learning: Lessons from Abroad,” Advertising supplement 

to Education Week, sponsored by The Aspen Institute. 

Available: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/ 

content/docs/education%20and%20society%20program/ 

Ed_Lessons_from_Abroad.pdf. 



54. Sclafani and Lim, 2008, p. 21. 


56. Wong, 2009. 

57. S. Davie, “Teachers’ pay linked closely to performance; 

Annual increments and bonuses vary according to merit and 

potential,” The Straits Times, December 29, 2007. 


59. Cheng Yang Lu, “Better Pay for Teachers Not at Odds 

with Passion,” The Straits Times, January 15, 2008. 



62. Scalfani, 2009. 


64. Scalfani, 2009. 

65. Sclafani, 2009.

Using Competency-Based Evaluation to Drive Teacher Excellence

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?